Evolutionism vs creationism

[gut]

> I feel that I should point out something really, really obvious about this statement.

I'm curious.

> I think we agree on a lot more than I originally thought we did.

Shame to see things winding down.

> Please quote me in context. I am not talking about the results of evolution

Fair enough, I will rephrase:

if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the THEORY
ABOUT HOW THE RESULT CAME TO BE is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was
involved, said intelligence is 'a terrible designer'.

Happy?

> theirs are superior to ours in just about every way

Some birds eyes can take up more than 20% of their head. Personally, I think there
are reasons why our eyes are the way they are. Do I have the slightest interest
in finding out why? No.

> Is it possible for a perfect being to make something imperfect?

is it possible for an imperfect being to answer that question

> You don't consider most Christians to be followers of Jesus' teachings. Given that they believe all that other stuff in the Bible, you know.

I don't consider humans to be perfect followers of anything, but I don't compare
anything to the standard of perfection, only to the alternative.

> The Crusades

IMO that was for $$$, not for the crime of being different. And that was despite
jesus's teachings, not because of them.

> The colonization of the Americas

Same thing.

> Christians also murdered/tortured Christians

You call them christians, they call themselves christians, I'll withhold
what I call them.

> Torture and capital punishment are not the same as jail

thus the word 'under'.

> If having the threat of hell eliminated murder and torture now, sure, that'd
be a benefit to the doctrine, regardless of whether or not its true. I just don't see any evidence
to believe that is the case.

You don't think that fear of hell has turned any from the path of violence/murder?
You don't think that desire for heaven has done the same?
You are thinking too much in your own mind
I have worked with people who believe the lottery machine will spit them out
winners/losers based upon the time of day.

> God created hell

Actually googled that one. Was quickly reminded why I never could get
into this stuff. Anyway, the story goes that hell was created by god,
but not for humans, for devil and such. If humans were threatened with
it later, was too lazy to look for why.

> Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus created hell.

Was too lazy to google more, but distant memories hint at that the
father/son/holy ghost trinity wasn't as simple a thing as that. I
remember it as being topic of disagreement between branches, and I
don't remember any instance of jesus claiming to have created hell.

> this Christian area has been essentially free of strife and conflict since that time?

Indeed not, but was it more or less violent because of jesus's influence?

> the United States, despite being a "Christian" nation, has the world's highest incarceration rate,

Putting criminals in jail is unchristian? The violent areas of which you speak are
not Kentucky and Utah, more like Las Angelas and New York. The church to liquor
store ratio in these different areas is in expected harmony with their respective
crime rates. Please do not consider all states 1/50th of the same mentality.

> and has, for all practical purposes, been in a continuous state of war for the last 60 or so years

I think america's military endeavors are more the result of military and/or
economic considerations than religious ones. Our government is secular, as is
a number of European governments, all rather constantly involved in militant
actions.

> If he's right, then he and God are evil and immoral.

Many things seem that way in this world. Baby deer being eaten by wolves and such
seem the creation of an evil mind. But if one thinks for a while, they can
understand how a system without dead baby deer could end up worse. The same
could be said for an Earth without a notion of hell.

[Theym]

>Was too lazy to google more, but distant memories hint at that the
>father/son/holy ghost trinity wasn't as simple a thing as that. I
>remember it as being topic of disagreement between branches, and I
>don't remember any instance of jesus claiming to have created hell.

Has to do with catholisim, they believe that Jesus and God are the same, and that God and the Holy Spirit are the same, and that Jesus and the Holy Spitit are the same. Thus making Mary the mother of God. So i guess to them that also makes Jesus the creator of Hell.

[littlebrather]

Has to do with catholisim, they believe that Jesus and God are the same

This question has been discussed for >2000 years by thousands of great theologists, little disagreement results in more than one schism, branch of wars, near millions of deaths, and ofc great saga by pan Sapkovski) And you can make this so nice and easy - just in one sentence? Congrtz

[JellySlayer]

> I feel that I should point out something really, really obvious about this statement.

Well, obviously the reason that viruses are developing antibiotic resistance is because they're evolving. That or God is messing with us again, which I guess is also possible.

if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the THEORY
ABOUT HOW THE RESULT CAME TO BE is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was
involved, said intelligence is 'a terrible designer'.

Let me put it this way... many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now due to a process that you describe as essentially based on chance. Now I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should be distinguishable from something that is based on chance. So, if you believe that life was designed intelligently, why is it that so many people accept a theory that you equate to chance?

> You don't consider most Christians to be followers of Jesus' teachings. Given that they believe all that other stuff in the Bible, you know.

> The Crusades

IMO that was for $$$, not for the crime of being different. And that was despite
jesus's teachings, not because of them.

> The colonization of the Americas

Same thing.

So you agree that many Christians don't believe Jesus' teachings. And that they have no problem misconstruing them to violent ends when they need to.

thus the word 'under'.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression then.

You don't think that fear of hell has turned any from the path of violence/murder?
You don't think that desire for heaven has done the same?

To be honest, no, I don't think it has been terribly effective at those ends, because getting to heaven/hell is not based upon what you do, but what you believe. Furthermore, as I've mentioned above, Christians seem to be able and willing to justify various despicable acts in spite of these doctrines. Other cultures seem to have gotten along pretty well without the idea of heaven or hell, though.

> Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus created hell.

Was too lazy to google more, but distant memories hint at that the
father/son/holy ghost trinity wasn't as simple a thing as that. I
remember it as being topic of disagreement between branches, and I
don't remember any instance of jesus claiming to have created hell.

Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God, and God did create hell.

> this Christian area has been essentially free of strife and conflict since that time?

Indeed not, but was it more or less violent because of jesus's influence?

History doesn't lend itself to those kinds of measurements very well, unfortunately.

> the United States, despite being a "Christian" nation, has the world's highest incarceration rate,

Putting criminals in jail is unchristian?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, remember?

> and has, for all practical purposes, been in a continuous state of war for the last 60 or so years

I think america's military endeavors are more the result of military and/or
economic considerations than religious ones. Our government is secular, as is
a number of European governments, all rather constantly involved in militant
actions.

Much too complicated to discuss here. Yes, certainly most of America's foreign policy has nothing to with religion... except, pretty much, for politics surrounding Israel itself, which does contain a religious aspect (although even here other factors are important as well).

[Dorten]

@JellySlayer

You really should read at least some theological books. Cause, now you don't even understand basic concepts of what hell is, what sin is and so on. You know, all your "If I were God..." sounds just like: "If I were chief of financial department, I'd print a lot of cash and give ten grand to every poor man!"

For example: hell is not a punishment, nor a torture. Suffering? yes.
Sin is not an act, sin is a state, like, disease. Acts are it's manifestations. And you can have that disease which does not manifest itselfs in any visible (to others) way.

It's the fault of western education at 7th-10th centuries, that the sin is seen as an act of crime, which should be avenged (You know, education was based on reading lots and lots of latin law codes and such => such menthality), and here goes: "why is there eternal punishment for limited crime" => whole new and fucked up concept of purgatory...

I'd gladly support you with literature, but unfortunately I don't know how most theological therms translate into English, so finding some would be very hard for me. You can try to find translations of prof Osipov lectures, he really knows what he says.

@gut
And atheism is still not a religion. There are atheists, that treat it as religion, but that's all.
Religion of somethingism is like: you don't treat is as religion => you are not somethingist. And that is not true for atheism.

[Theym]

This question has been discussed for >2000 years by thousands of great theologists, little disagreement results in more than one schism, branch of wars, near millions of deaths, and ofc great saga by pan Sapkovski) And you can make this so nice and easy - just in one sentence? Congrtz

It's a Jersey thing J/k Washington born and raised

[JellySlayer]

@JellySlayer

You really should read at least some theological books. Cause, now you don't even understand basic concepts of what hell is, what sin is and so on. You know, all your "If I were God..." sounds just like: "If I were chief of financial department, I'd print a lot of cash and give ten grand to every poor man!"

Except that the chief of finance has finite resources. Money given to one person is taken away from another, directly or indirectly. God is infinite in resources. He made the universe. Would it have been so hard to change a fraction of a corner of an insignificant speck of it so that His favoured beings wouldn't always be starving to death? Would it have been so hard for the God who created the Earth itself to have created it in such a way that it doesn't occasionally open up and swallow some of his beloved children? Can you not imagine a way that this world could have been made that would be better for us then how it was made?

For example: hell is not a punishment, nor a torture. Suffering? yes.

Nonsense.

Jesus describes hell as a place of "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:42); and as a place of "eternal punishment" (Matt 25:46); and in the parable of Lazarus, describes hell as a place of "torment" and "anguish" (Luke 16:23).

In Revelation, we see that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire and tormented forever (Rev 20:10) and will be joined by those whose names are not in the book of life (15). Revelation 14:9-10 is particularly clear on this: If anyone worships the beast and his image, and takes the mark on his forehead or his hand, 14:10 that person 29 will also drink of the wine of God?s anger 30 that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur31 in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb. 14:11 And the smoke from their 32 torture will go up 33 forever and ever, and those who worship the beast and his image will have 34 no rest day or night, along with 35 anyone who receives the mark of his name.

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Sin is not an act, sin is a state, like, disease. Acts are it's manifestations. And you can have that disease which does not manifest itselfs in any visible (to others) way.

It's the fault of western education at 7th-10th centuries, that the sin is seen as an act of crime, which should be avenged (You know, education was based on reading lots and lots of latin law codes and such => such menthality), and here goes: "why is there eternal punishment for limited crime" => whole new and fucked up concept of purgatory...

This is a complicated problem to describe, but fairly irrelevant to my mind. God inflicted us with the "disease" of sin, so it is hardly just for Him to then punish us for placing us in that particular state.* I contend, nonetheless, that you are incorrect about the idea that sin as an act of crime is a relatively more recent idea. The Old Testament clearly defines sins in terms of obedience to God's moral laws, and that righteousness could be attained by faith in God and following the Law. The concepts of hereditary original sin, or a sinful state of being, are entirely absent. Indeed, I point out that Jews do not believe in either of these ideas, nor, to my knowledge, have these ideas ever been seriously considered in mainstream Judaism (incidently, the concept of hell is also completely absent from the OT). The original description of sin is entirely legalistic. Jesus, being Jewish himself, discusses sin almost exclusively in these terms (there's a suggestion of the other interpretation in John 8). It is only Paul who really advocates for this idea that sin is an inherent property, and only he who argues for the existence of original sin.

To forestall your objection: No, we did not put ourselves in the state of sin. God did. God created the "sin disease" and defined its properties in much the same way He created the universe. However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God. If you believe it's a result of, say, Adam and Eve, I point out that having no concept of right and wrong, no concept of death, being pitted against a supernatural foe that they were never told about, who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate, did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter. God chose to define it in such a way that it would invariably inflict all of mankind.

[littlebrather]

God created the "sin disease"

BTW Light creates the shadows. All this arguments have already been said far ago. An the main idea of Dorten was to turn you from flamewars on internet forums to reading theological and philosophical books. The subject has been discussed there for ages. But I know, having your own opinion is quite easy.

[Dorten]

To forestall your objection: No, we did not put ourselves in the state of sin. God did. God created the "sin disease" and defined its properties in much the same way He created the universe. However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God. If you believe it's a result of, say, Adam and Eve, I point out that having no concept of right and wrong, no concept of death, being pitted against a supernatural foe that they were never told about, who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate, did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter. God chose to define it in such a way that it would invariably inflict all of mankind.

I'll answer to this, as other is clearly result of not thinking about the problem, like "who will be torturing whom", and such.

Is darkness the fault of light?
God didn't "create" sin. Sin is a state of being against God. It's just this way: whole world lives and works only because of God, as you get 'farther' from Him, you lose His support. And suffer. It's not that He 'makes' us suffer. Instead, He does not make us not to suffer, but only those, who do not want to be with God. And Jewish 'laws', described in Old Testament were given only because people lost their natural ability to see what's good and what's not. So God tells: "OK, as you cant think for yoursalves that's it: this is bad, and this is good".
About Adam and Eve:
"having no concept of right and wrong" - where did you get this strange thought?
"no concept of death" - where did you get this strange thought?
"who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate" - where did you get this strange thought?
"did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter" - have they been expelled from Eden right at the moment of eating that fruit?

[gut]

> Well, obviously the reason that viruses are developing antibiotic resistance is
because they're evolving. That or God is messing with us again, which I guess is also possible.

I thought maybe you meant the seeming lack of evlolution in human bodies
that would allow to fight the virii without outside help.

> Let me put it this way... many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now due to a process
that you describe as essentially based on chance

Ahh, many people believe. So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them
Those cultists would be really difficult to debate with...

> I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should
be distinguishable from something that is based on chance

It is OK for me to not share that assumption? I have heard that assuming makes
an ASS out of U and ME

> So, if you believe that life was designed intelligently,

I do believe there was a guiding intelligence somewhere in there, somewhat based
on the fact that I don't believe theories such as 'first there was nothing, then it
exploded' and 'with ENOUGH billions of years (with proper conditions, no natural
disasters, etc...) it could happen'.

As I've said previously in this thread, I sometimes wonder if it is evil/disrespectful
for me to simply not care what roll said intelligence played or when. After years of
thought I came to the conclusion that it is not

> why is it that so many people accept a theory that you equate to chance?

You are asking me to explain the mind/thinking of my fellow man. This is one thing I
have consistantly failed to do.

Perhaps they were as you, endoctinated into (one of) the prevailing religions, got
old enough to think for themselves, decided it wasn't quite as true as they were
lead to believe, then went on to prove the old saying that 'zealots make the best
converts'.

> So you agree that many Christians don't believe Jesus' teachings

If they don't follow Jesus's teachings, how do you/them refer to them as christians?

> Sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression then

Putting criminals UNDER the jail? Get it? Under the jail???

>> You don't think that desire for heaven has done the same?

> To be honest, no, I don't think it has been terribly effective at those ends

Again, what do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live? I have seen it with
my own eyes numerous times. I'll give an unofficial gut estimation that about 2/3
of young men in my area have changed lives do to jesus' influence, and heaven and
hell do play their part.

> getting to heaven/hell is not based upon what you do, but what you believe

the counter being that if you really believe in good, you won't do evil...

> Furthermore, as I've mentioned above, Christians seem to be able and willing to justify various despicable acts in spite of these doctrines.

As I have mentioned above, these actions you mention are mainly the work of secular
govenments.

> Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God,

to the best of my memory, it is not as simple as a=b=c

> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, remember?

throwing stones = jail? How about 'treat others as you would be treated' instead?
If I commit a crime, I would expect to be thrown in jail. I'm OK with that
happening to me, so I'm OK with it happening to others.

> don't even understand basic concepts of what hell is, what sin is and so on

then I suppose I don't either, as his pretty much = mine

> all your "If I were God..." sounds just like: "If I were chief of financial department, I'd print a lot of
cash and give ten grand to every poor man!

Oh how I wish I had come up with that line...
Can we go back?

> whole new and fucked up concept of purgatory...

I am open to the idea that most people's theories about any religion have been
screwed through time, translations, and such.

> Religion of somethingism is like: you don't treat is as religion => you are not somethingist

Ahh, but what if you DO treat it like a religion?

" atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

People who are open-minded, yet unconvinced are agnostic. Athiesm means you
believe in the absence of god, with no proof. That is faith. If they deny
being a religion then they = cult.

> Can you not imagine a way that this world could have been made that would be better for us then how it was made?

Doesn't the story go that once upon a time, things were as you say?

> If anyone worships the beast and his image,

Well, just don't do that, and you're good

> God inflicted us with the "disease" of sin

I seem to remember the story going differently...

> there's a suggestion of the other interpretation in John 8). It is only Paul who really advocates for this idea

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I knew scripture like you, I'd prolly
be an athiest too.

> However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God.

You say fault, I say credit. I'm not particularly unhappy with life.

...gonna hit 10K yet...